ORIGINAL: Tee Bee
I friend of mine just gave me this plane and made me promise to put it together and fly it. When he made the offer, I didn't know what a reputation this model had. I just did some searching on it and found some old threads about how awful it flies. It seems that many folks have tried many things to make this beautiful plane fly well but few have succeeded. I just wonder if anyone has fooled with one of these in the last few years as all the threads I found are pretty dated. I would just as soon put it together and just admire it hanging from the ceiling but trying to fly it was part of the deal. If I'm going to attempt flight, I'd appreciate any advice I could get from those experienced with it. Thanks.
This kit may not fly well, but it sure is pretty.
----------------
I hope my memory is correct.
I had one of these ARCs a few years ago. I paid $20 for it because it had a few broken stringers that took a few minutes to fix. <G>
If I'm thinking of the correct model, the recommended positive incidence in the top wing is the culprit that is responsible for its bad flying reputation. Don't let folks load your brain with a bunch of baloney about "you want the top wing to stall first". Don Lowe wrote an article in RCM (I think) back in 81 or so and disclosed his then secret method (top wing negative incidence - but only a tad) that he used to civilize his aerobatic bipes. I tried it both with and without and believe me, with works fantastically well. The Phaeton grooved like a Kaos with the 1/2 degree of negative incidence in the top wing. The Phaeton that I flew and the Great Lakes ARC that you have both used semi-symmetrical airfoils. Don Lowe's treatment absolutely works as advertised.
Use 1/2 degree negative incidence (yes, negative) in the top wing and zero to 1/2 degree positive incidence in the bottom wing. Yeah, I know this is different than what the instructions recommend, but the instructions will provide you with a really doggy flying model if you follow them. Start out with a slightly forward balance point (incorrectly called CG by folks that should know better).
Being a biplane, there is lots of drag. This is a good thing for R/C models, believe it or not. No sooner have we flown straight and level for a while then we must turn. Slowing down a model with drag lets us push the engine a bit, providing that good sound and locked-in feeling that we all appreciate, even if we aren't conscious of it. Remember to keep the model upwind and high when you can't hear your engine because of other noises, like other modelers flying their models. There's nothing worse than flying a high drag model low and slow, only to discover that your engine has quit and you can't make it back to the field.
Being a biplane (again), it will probably need nose weight for proper balance. Instead of loading up the nose with lead (my Phaeton had a 5 oz. lead bar mounted to the firewall), use a larger four-stroke engine, such as an OS/Magnum .70 or.91. Yes, a .91 sounds humongous for this model, but it isn't. Just keep the pitch of the prop down to about 6" and you'll be fine.
Anyway, good luck with your Great Lakes ARC.
Ed Cregger